Wow, you leave for a better part of the week and come back to find your post out of control.

Thanks for everyone who replied. I didn't think it would attract the attention of niko or slashdot. Although, I did post this on digg out of pure anger since it took some effort to make and upload the videos. I was planning on removing all my videos from youtube this weekend to protest.

This content has been restored and your account will not be penalized. Fortechnical reasons, it may take a day for the videos to be available again.

Sincerely,

JacobThe YouTube Team

Once, again thanks for everyone who helped out especially bitplane. The CEO of Top10 Media, Inc also contacted me on several legal paths to resolving this issue. Fortunately, we don't have to go down that path.

I think viacom retracted their claim in part due to the overwhelming responses from various media outlet, news, forums, blogs, etc. It goes to show how powerful our voices can be when we speak up for our rights. So, I have to thank everyone who took the time to read/post/respond to all of this. If not for you, VIACOM would have gotten away with this. Again, thank you all.

veegun wrote:I was shocked to find an email from youtube claiming that the irrlicht example 5 video infringed on viacom's copyright.

I haven't a clue what it is that's in the example 5 video that viacom owns. Maybe they own the user-interface of irrlicht?

Here's the full email:

Dear Member:

This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by Viacom International Inc. claiming that this material is infringing:

Please Note: Repeat incidents of copyright infringement will result in the deletion of your account and all videos uploaded to that account. In order to avoid future strikes against your account, please delete any videos to which you do not own the rights, and refrain from uploading additional videos that infringe on the copyrights of others. For more information about YouTube's copyright policy, please read the Copyright Tips guide.

If you elect to send us a counter notice, to be effective it must be a written communication provided to our designated agent that includes substantially the following (please consult your legal counsel or see 17 U.S.C. Section 512(g)(3) to confirm these requirements):A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber.Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled.A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.The subscriber's name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriberis address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.

Such written notice should be sent to our designated agent as follows:

Please note that under Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act, any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification may be subject to liability.

Sincerely,YouTube, Inc.

wow ..you too eh! Yeah, im working on a plan..its not a joke..they took away so many peoples legitimate vids. Mine was of a little indie band in Montreal called Call Me Poupee(Call Me Doll) who opened for The Dresden Dolls in July at a little venue. Its ludicrous and highly illegal what they have done not only breaking the law in the United States but as well Canada and who knows where else. I have one email that i dredged out of my gmail from months back when I emailed copies to Amanda of The Dresden Dolls.. so they really have no claim or right. I will look at any class action suit..but will consider certain actions of my own I have planned for Viacom! Ultimately they broke the law while trying to claim everyone else is acting illegally. For that they should pay. I only write this in support of someone else that it happened to and to show the people who may just think its isolated that it is not. One letter someone showed claimed that they had viewed every offending video before removal. Do you believe that? That means they admit that they are guilty because if they had actually viewed the videos then they would have known that they have nothing to do with anything of theirs. Hard to believe also coming from a company that has core assets that are dependent on videos for profit! -bill
-----Here is my notice I received over a week ago--------
YouTube | Broadcast Yourself™
Dear Member:
This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by Viacom International Inc. claiming that this material is infringing:

Please Note: Repeat incidents of copyright infringement will result in the deletion of your account and all videos uploaded to that account. In order to avoid future strikes against your account, please delete any videos to which you do not own the rights, and refrain from uploading additional videos that infringe on the copyrights of others. For more information about YouTube's copyright policy, please read the Copyright Tips guide.

If you elect to send us a counter notice, to be effective it must be a written communication provided to our designated agent that includes substantially the following (please consult your legal counsel or see 17 U.S.C. Section 512(g)(3) to confirm these requirements):

A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber.
Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled.
A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.
The subscriber's name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriberis address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.
Such written notice should be sent to our designated agent as follows: